The Common Strategic Framework
and its Impact on Rural Development
Nadège CHAMBON, Alin Cristian MITUŢA, Neculai-Cristian ŞURUBARU
Foreword by Dacian CIOLOȘ
50
Policy
Paper
Policy
50
paper
The Common Strategic
Framework and its Impact
on Rural Development
Nadège Chambon
Alin Cristian Mituţa
Neculai-Cristian Şurubaru
Foreword by Dacian Cioloș
Nadège CHAMBON
Alin Cristian MITUŢA
Neculai-Cristian
Nadège Chambon is
Alin Cristian Mituţa is
ŞURUBARU
Senior Research Fellow,
Director of Europuls,
Neculai-Cristian Şurubaru
in charge of “CAP 2013”
a Brussels-based
is a Member of the
research project at
Romanian think tank
Board and Junior Policy
Notre Europe, that she
specialised in European
Officer at Europuls, in
has joined in 2005.
affairs. He is a graduate
Brussels. He graduated
She graduated from
of Sciences Po Paris,
with a Master’s degree
the Instituts d’Etudes
of Université Paris X
in European Politics and
Politiques in Lyon and
and of the National
Administration from
Strasbourg, where she
School for Political
Maastricht University
studied political science
and Administrative
and a degree in
and economics.
Studies, having degrees
International Relations
In the framework of
in Political Science,
and European Studies
her research activities,
International Relations
from Central European
she has been involved
and EU Affairs.
University (CEU). Mr.
in expert works for the
His fields of expertise
Şurubaru is specialised
Commission and the
include agriculture,
in European institutional
European Parliament.
civil liberties and
affairs and policy-
Her articles and
home affairs.
making, and his interests
interventions are
include: enlargement
available on Notre
and the integration of
Europe’s website.
Central and Eastern
European countries,
rural development and
cohesion policy.
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Notre Europe
Notre Europe is an independent think tank devoted to European integration.
Under the guidance of Jacques Delors, who created Notre Europe in 1996,
the association aims to “think a united Europe.”
Our ambition is to contribute to the current public debate by producing
analyses and pertinent policy proposals that strive for a closer union of
the peoples of Europe. We are equally devoted to promoting the active
engagement of citizens and civil society in the process of community
construction and the creation of a European public space.
In this vein, the staff of Notre Europe directs research projects; produces
and disseminates analyses in the form of short notes, studies, and articles;
and organises public debates and seminars. Its analyses and proposals
are concentrated around four themes:
• Visions of Europe: The community method, the enlargement and
deepening of the EU and the European project as a whole are a work in
constant progress. Notre Europe provides in-depth analysis and proposals
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
that help find a path through the multitude of Europe’s possible futures.
• European Democracy in Action: Democracy is an everyday priority. Notre
Europe believes that European integration is a matter for every citizen,
actor of civil society and level of authority within the Union. Notre Europe
therefore seeks to identify and promote ways of further democratising
European governance.
• Competition, Cooperation, Solidarity: “Competition that stimulates,
cooperation that strengthens, and solidarity that unites”. This, in essence,
is the European contract as defined by Jacques Delors. True to this approach,
Notre Europe explores and promotes innovative solutions in the fields of
economic, social and sustainable development policy.
• Europe and World Governance: As an original model of governance in
an increasingly open world, the European Union has a role to play on the
international scene and in matters of world governance. Notre Europe
seeks to help define this role.
Notre Europe aims for complete freedom of thought and works in the spirit
of the public good. It is for this reason that all of Notre Europe’s publications
are available for free from our website, in both French and English:
www.notre-europe.eu
Its Presidents have been successively Jacques Delors (1996-2004),
Pascal Lamy (2004-2005), Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa (2005-2010) and
António Vitorino (since 2011).
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Europuls
Europuls is a Brussels-based think tank which aims to improve Romania’s
European awareness by stimulating debates on topics of European
and national relevance. Created by an active group of young Romanian
professionals in European affairs, Europuls aims to support and
better communicate Romania’s needs at the European level but also to
contribute to the development of a European public space. To this end,
Europuls publishes quality articles and analysis on its online platform:
www.europuls.ro and organises public debates, seminars and high level
conferences.
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Foreword
To the classic question “Does agriculture or non-agriculture receive too
much of the money dedicated to rural development?”, we can offer a provocative reply: to think in these terms is nonsensical. In fact, it would be
contrived to separate the rural from agriculture. They are two sides of a
single coin: agriculture has always been the central economic activity in
rural areas. While it is certainly losing ground to other economic sectors,
agriculture and the presence of farmers in rural areas are essential components of rural dynamics. This is why rural development policy falls under the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
However, the shift in the relation between rural and urban areas encourages a new approach, one which brings these two dimensions together to
create greater overall development of the territory. The Common Strategic
Framework is the best way to respond to this new reality.���������������
��������������
Rural development is inextricably linked to agriculture, which plays an essential role,
but coordination with other territorial and economic development instruThe Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
ments must be ensured because the rural aspect cannot be separated from
the rest of the territory in terms of infrastructure, the development of nonagricultural economic activity and services, or education.
The initiative of the Common Strategic Framework allows for agriculture to
be managed with from a territorial point of view. In this way, the CAP makes
use of instruments to deal with the issue of food from a territorial standpoint by integrating the economic, social and environmental dimensions.
The investment required in rural areas can make use of the instruments
provided by these two policies. The economic development of rural areas
can be linked to that of urban areas.����������������������������������������
���������������������������������������
Furthermore, the regions need coordination to avoid having to choose to align their projects either with rural development or regional development policy. The Common Strategic Framework
promotes the idea of coordinating these instruments: it facilitates the task
for project leaders. Although these instruments have specific objectives,
they follow from the Europe 2020 Strategy.���������������������������������
��������������������������������
This strategy increases the consistency of objectives from their conception to their realisation on all levels:
community, national and regional. While it facilitates communication
between the instruments, the Common Strategic Framework does not alter
their specificity in order to ensure a certain degree of complementarity and
adaptation to the urban and rural issues that are specific to each region.
This approach reinforces the strategic dimension because the Member States
and the regions will have to think in terms of sectors as well as territories, for
instance in the case of the CAP. By doing so, the most appropriate sector can
be chosen for regional development, CAP objectives can be better met, and
adjustments may be made to take into account the diversity of situations and
agricultural production conditions within the European Union. Economic and
agricultural activity may be maintained in numerous rural regions; economic
activities, services and infrastructures may be developed in the zones where
rural development instruments are unsuitable; and agricultural production may
be better integrated into the broader question of economic activity in rural areas.
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
The Common Strategic Framework maintains consistency and complementarity between the first and second pillars of the CAP. Moreover, the
recommended territorial approach strengthens the link between agricultural activity, non-agricultural economic activity, and social and environmental issues. It responds to the request for flexibility of regions and
Member States with regards to the instruments available. Focus may be
directed not on the instruments used but rather on the results achieved.
The Commission wishes to move towards more coordination, consistency
and results. To do so, we are establishing measurement indicators: while
we wish to give the Member States flexibility in using these instruments,
it is upon the condition that they commit to achieving results. This is why
the Common Strategic Framework is linked to macroeconomic conditionality: it is impossible to take a macroeconomic approach without considering regional development; they are inseparable. Furthermore, the
European budget must contribute to better macroeconomic balance as well
as stimulate growth.�������������������������������������������������
������������������������������������������������
The Common Strategic Framework promotes performance. It measures that performance using indicators, rewards those who
perform well and reduces bureaucratic red tape. This should strengthen
the absorption capacity of European funds and give greater visibility and
transparency to the funds used for rural development.������������������������
Integrating
�����������������������
the instruments will show the contribution of rural development to overall economic
development.
Supporting agriculture in rural areas remains a policy objective. All Member
States have an interest in supporting their agriculture.������������������������
�����������������������
We must not artificially separate agriculture from the rest of the economy: it goes hand in hand
with developing the rural economy. With this new measure, the Member
States and regions must now make the Commission’s wish to simplify and
give greater flexibility to the use of European funds dedicated for rural development a reality.
Dacian Cioloș, European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Table of Contents
Executive summary
1
Introduction
5
1. C
hronology of the coordination of rural development funds
until now
9
1.1. First step: the first measures for rural development
9
1.2. Second step: rural development and the creation
of the cohesion policy
10
1.3. Third step: the 2 pillar of the CAP
nd
12
1.4. A fourth step: beyond 2014, EU policies in line
with the new rural paradigm?
14
2. T
he architecture of the Common Strategic Framework (CSF)
and its impact on rural development
17
2.1. General architecture of the CSF
17
2.2. Rural development and the CSF policy setting
19
3. The added value and uncertainties of a Common Strategic
Framework for rural development
23
3.1. Adapting our policies to the Europe 2020 Strategy and
to new urban-rural relations
23
3.2. A key factor in the success of the CSF:
coordination at the national level
26
3.3. Reducing or increasing the administrative burden
of European programmes?
28
3.4. Will rural areas benefit or be weakened under the CSF?
29
3.5. The CSF and its benefits for local stakeholders
30
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Concluding remarks
33
Annexes
Annex 1: Programme of the conference
35
Annex 2: Current Functionning of Rural Development
36
Annex 3: Rural Development after 2014
37
Annex 4: The CSF: towards integrated local development strategies
38
Bibliography
41
Selection of Notre Europe’s Publications on Budget,
CAP and Cohesion
43
List of tables
Table 1: Budget of the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) funds
and share in the EU Budget (2014-2020)
6
Table 2: Programming systems of EAFRD and Structural Funds
before the CSF
14
Table 3: Summary of key coordination challenges and solution
15
Table 4: How will rural development policy work with the CSF?
21
Table 5: Common Strategic Framework – Main steps to come
25
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
Executive summary
The Common Strategic Framework (CSF) proposed on 5 October 2011 by
the Commission aims to foster the coordination of five funds that will cover
42.2% of the EU budget 2014-2020: European Regional Development
Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the Cohesion Fund (CF), the
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the future
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). This Policy Paper – that
benefited from the outcomes of a conference organised by Notre Europe
and Europuls1 in the European Parliament – gives an overview of the coordination of EU rural development instruments and funds until now, explains
the innovative architecture of the CSF and analyses the added value and
incertainties it implies for rural development policy.
1. 22 November 2011 conference, “The Common Strategic Framework: adding value to rural development?
Bridging the gap between the CAP and the cohesion policy” with the participation of Dacian Cioloș,
Commissioner for agriculture and rural development; Dirk Ahner, Director General of DG Regio; Britta
Reimers, MEP; and Stefanos Loukopolous, ELARD representative. See Programme in annex 1.
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
–1
1. How did the coordination of rural development funds work until the CSF?
(page 9 to 16)
The CSF, characterised by a coordination effort between funds, is the fourth
noticeable change in rural development policy of the EU.
• First from 1964 to the mid-80s, the EU only proposed some
isolated measures for rural areas.
• Second, from 1986, the cohesion policy that had been initiated
by the Single European Act launched a socio-structural policy for
the rural areas.
• Third, rural development moved from cohesion policy to the 2nd
pillar of the CAP within the MacSharry reform (1992). This was the
first design of rural development policy in favour of a balanced
development of these areas, under the agricultural policy.
• Fourth, from 2014 the CSF might prevent rural development
instruments from a lack of consistency thanks to a better coordination of structural funds, EAFRD and EMFF. It seems to be a
new instrument with the potential of creating a tool for an integrated rural development policy instead of sector-based policies,
as described in the new rural paradigm.
2. The architecture of the Common Strategic Framework and its impact
on rural development (page 17 to 21)
• The EU 2020 Strategy for a “smart, sustainable and inclusive
growth” is the general objective of the CSF, translated through a
set of 11 thematic objectives. Each of the CSF funds divide them
into specific objectives related to their own specificities.
• The main innovation of the CSF mainly consists in the new coordination, evaluation and monitoring of funds.
• The key mechanism of the coordination within the Common
Strategic Framework is the Partnership Contract (PC) elaborated
by each Member State.
2 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
• The Commission has the power to sanction or reward the Member
States according to the ex-ante evaluation as well as a performance – with quantifiable objectives – to be attained, chosen by
each Member State (ex-post conditionality).
• Concerning the rural development and the CSF policy setting,
EAFRD retains its autonomy as an integrated policy under the CAP
heading. Member States identify their needs and establish their
priorities in the area, taking into account the European objectives,
when they draw their national strategic plans for rural development. Six EU-wide priorities steer the future EU rural development
policy2 instead of four axis.
3. The added value and uncertainties of a Common Strategic Framework
for rural development (page 23 to 31)
Added value…
• On the one hand, the future CSF will have the potential to improve
the way in which European funds are spent and targeted. On the
other hand, the CSF may increase the efficiency of these funds
which will now be pooled together, more coordinated, in order
to serve common priorities and objectives, investment priorities
and major challenges, in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy.
• Considering these improvements, the CSF might promote the visibility of rural development contribution to the EU growth strategy.
• As the CSF aims to improve the overall transparency in using EU
funds at national, regional and local levels, it will imply management of all the funds, guided by simplified procedures, common
principles and eligibility rules.
2. European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the EP and of the Council on support for rural
development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), COM(2011) 627 final/2,
19.10.2011.
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
–3
… but also uncertainties around the CSF proposal.
• These uncertainties mainly concern the definition of project
priorities that could lead to a competition between urban and
rural areas projects and a rising administrative burden for the
beneficiaries due to the launch of a new institutional system.
• Debates confirm the key role national administrations will play in
enacting the CSF priorities, adapting them to the local, regional
and national needs and, on top of that, coordinating their ministries and administrations to implement the CSF. The uncertainties
concerning the level of readiness of national institutions and their
capacity to coordinate the funds and manage the new framework
raises concerns among various stakeholders.
• Long discussions are expected in order to clarify many concrete
details before the implementation of the CSF.
4 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
Introduction
While
the Europe 2020 Strategy launches the European Economic
Strategy and the long term EU budget is being discussed in a public debt
crisis context, any proposal that improves the coherence and the efficiency of EU policies is welcomed. That is the case of the Common Strategic
Framework (CSF) proposed by the European Commission as a Regulation
of the European Parliament and the Council3, when it tabled the new
Cohesion Policy Regulations on 5 October 2011. The CSF will be part of the
new toolkit of EU policies starting in 2014.
Considering the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) proposals, the five
CSF funds – European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European
Social Fund (ESF), the Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Agricultural Fund
for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the future European Maritime and
Fisheries Fund (EMFF) – will cover 42.2% of the EU budget (see Table 1).
3. European Commission, Proposal for a Common Strategic Framework, COM(2011) 615 final, 06.10.2011.
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
–5
In that, a major share of EU policy action and particularly its structural and
territorial action will be concerned by the CSF. These figures should raise
more the attention of experts community and decision-makers compared
with the relatively confidential debate that has occured on the CSF since
October 2011. Moreover, behind this apparently technical issue, the
CSF deserves a serious discussion at least for two other reasons than its
budgetary weight.
Table 1: Budget of the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) funds
and share in the EU budget (2014-2020)4
2014-2020
2014-2020
(% of the EU
budget)
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
(EAFRD) = Pillar II
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)
Cohesion Fund (CS)
€89.9 bn
8.8%
€6.7 bn
0.7%
€68.7 bn
6.7%
€11.7 bn
€0.9 bn
1.1%
0.1%
€162.6 bn
€39.0 bn
€53.1 bn
15.8%
3.8%
5.2%
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
– Territorial cooperation
– E xtra allocation for outermost and sparsely
populated regions
ERDF + European Social Fund (ESF)4:
– Convergence regions
– Transition regions
– Competitiveness regions
TOTAL CSF Funds
Total EU budget
€432.6 bn
42.2%
€1,025.0 bn
100.0%
Source: Figures from COM(2011)500 final,
“A budget for Europe 2020 – Part II: Policy fiches”, and own calculation.
4. The figures available do not indicate separately the amount of the ERDF and ESF.
The authors kept the different categories of regions used by the Commission.
6 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
First, this is an uncommon initiative of Commisionners, that gathered themselves5 to propose the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) to President
Barroso. This initiative is particularly welcomed because it avoids the
useless debate of the former Multiannual Financial Framework discussions
about which of the Common agriculture policy (CAP) or Cohesion policy is
best suited to set rural development policy. By suggesting a better coordination between different policies the CSF adresses “the needs of rural
zones (…) because these CAP and cohesion policy must be present in
varying proportions depending on concrete situations, and adapted on a
case-by-case basis”6.
Second, the CSF could have a very substantial impact on the implementation of EU policies at national, regional and local levels, for Member
States governements but mainly for beneficiaries of all these funds. It will
particularly concern cohesion and rural development policies beneficiaries because of the required coordination of these funds. Overall, the CSF
raises several big issues that this paper will introduce and the conference
on the 22nd of November 2011 discussed: What are the reasons behind
adopting the CSF? What is the added value of the CSF for rural development policy on three levels: European, national and local? Regarding the
broader debate on the limits of rural development policy, will the CSF help
improve this policy?
5. The CSF creation follows a letter sent to President Barroso by four Commissioners: Hahn, Damanaki,
Andor and Cioloş, on 31st August 2010.
6. Jouen M., “The keys to a European strategy for rural development”, Note, Notre Europe, 2009.
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
–7
8 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
1. Chronology of the coordination
of rural development funds until now7
The history of EU support to rural development is a long and consistent
one, that one can distinguish in four different steps until the CSF.
1.1. First step: the first measures for rural development
The first step can be identified from 1964 to the mid-80s, with only
some isolated measures for rural areas. Initially, in 1962, the CAP and
the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) mainly
financed the common market organisations. But after only two years, in
1964, the fund was splitted in two parts (EAGGF-Guarantee and EAGGFGuidance) in order to improve the competitiveness of agriculture and
agri-food industries of lagging-behind regions. After refusing a strengthening of these structural measures of the CAP in the late 60’s, European
7. For a more detailed history of EU rural development policy, see Chambon N., Tomalino C.,
“Rural development in EU policy: a retrospective”, Policy Brief No.14, Notre Europe, 2009.
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
–9
politicians finally adopted in 1973 the Natural Handicap Payments (NHP),
which were the first structural measure for rural development designed for
non-farmers. This was done through the directive concerning farming in
mountainous regions, taking into account certain areas disadvantaged by
natural handicaps. These measures were clearly inspired by the cohesion
objective of the European Community.
1.2. Second step: rural development and the creation
of the cohesion policy
The second step started from 1986 with the creation of the cohesion
policy, initiated by the Single European Act. The first measures for a sociostructural policy for the countryside were included in the so-called “rural
areas” of the Treaty. In 1988, in the reform of the structural funds, the
Objective 5b launched the support to rural development as one of the
five objectives of the Structural Funds Reform. The key idea of the policy
consisted in considering rural areas as a critical target of the policy aiming
to reduce imbalances between the Member States’ regions. The cohesion
policy offered back then differents ways to support rural areas:
• Objective 1 allowed funding for lagging-behind regions, then for
rural and urban areas in regions where GDP/inhabitant was below
75% of the Community average.
• Objective 5b, intended to promote the development of vulnerable rural areas in other regions, is the true founding act of a
programme which places itself within the perspective of CAP
reform.
• Other rural areas may also have benefited from horizontal measures in accordance with cohesion policy objectives 2
(adaptation of regions in industrial decline), 3 (the fight against
long-term unemployment), and 4 (facilitating youth integration
into the workplace).
10 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
In addition, in 1991, the first LEADER Community initiative was implemented (1991-1994). This programme introduced an innovation by stimulating
endogeneous local development in rural areas8.
These approaches can be qualified ex-post as pionneer as they adressed
the multi-dimensions of rural development by offering diversified measures
not sector-based (agriculture) but area-based. This meant a broad and
complex scope of rural economy: investment in job-creating enterprises,
development of rural infrastructures (road network, sanitation, etc.), and
maintenance of natural landscapes. As a consequence three funds were
used: the ESF (European Social Fund), the EAGGF-Guidance, and the ERDF
(European Regional Development Fund). This was the beginning of an integrated rural policy that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) has theorised in the “New rural paradigm” in 2006,
almost ten years later.
8. “Local development means territorial, integrated strategies which mobilise many local actors in the
form of a partnership. Its short-term aim is to improve local living and working conditions, and its
long-term ambition is structural change.(…)” Since 2000 two other European programmes support local
development initiatives: URBAN for urban development in the regional policy and EQUAL for innovation
and fight against discrimination in the employment and social policy. See Jouen M., “Local development
in Europe: assessment and prospects after the economic crisis”, Policy Brief No. 21, Notre Europe, 2011.
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
– 11
he
h to rural
volving?
RURAL
M
channelling money to rural areas is not enough to address their problems
and help them develop. This has led in many countries to policies and
programmes aimed at developing rural areas and making them more
competitive by mobilising local assets. Since the 1980s, regional redistribution
policy has become less prominent on the political agenda, while policies
aimed at identifying and targeting local economic opportunities are growing
in importance. Regional policy has thus begun a paradigm shift from a
hat isstrategy
the new
ruralregional
paradigm
top-down, subsidy-based
to reduce
disparities into a much
familyhave
of policies
designed
improve
regional
competitiveness.
(…)broader
Governments
moved away
from a to
defensive
attitude
to rural
policy, essentially
Theseon
new
approaches
are characterised
by several
First,
there is a .
focussed
trying
to halt a decline
, to concentrate
more onfactors.
seizing new
opportunities
development strategy covering a number of factors such as infrastructure and
Some of these opportunities are linked to agriculture, but most will be in nonthe availability of a suitable workforce, that affect the performance of local
agricultural activities.
firms. Second, there is a greater focus on local assets and knowledge and less
Theofquestion
how
to adapt current
rural strategies
, which are
-based,
a focusison
investments
and transfers
from outside
theoften
ruralsector
area concerned.
Finally,
is athe
collective/negotiated
approach
such
to take
intothere
account
different developmentgovernance
needs of rural
regions,to
many
of matters,
which
involving national, regional and local government plus other stakeholders,
are based on exploiting specific local resources – policies to encourage water- based
with the central government playing a less dominant role. ■
W
?
activities such as fishing and sailing are clearly not suitable to all areas, for example .
H
owever, these new approaches to rural development have not yet been accompanied
As
a result of the above-mentioned factors, several OECD countries are
by
a substantial
reallocation of place-based
resources to integrated
Designing
developing
a multi-sectoral,
approachrural
that policy
aims .to
identifysuch
and exploit
the varied
development
potential
of rural
areas.
Two
principles
policies
for different
communities
or territories
requires
seeking
more
coherence
characterise this “new rural paradigm”: a focus on places instead of sectors;
and a focus on investments instead of subsidies.
among sectoral policies and the pooling of knowledge held by a wide variety of public
and private actors.
Traditional hierarchical administrative structures are likely to be
A new, integrated approach to rural policy can be seen in an increasing
number of initiatives in member countries.
inadequate to administer these policies effectively.
The New Rural Paradigm
Old approach
New approach
Objectives
Equalisation, farm income, farm
competitiveness
Competitiveness of rural areas,
valorisation of local assets, exploitation
of unused resources
Key target sector
Agriculture
Various sectors of rural economies
(ex. rural tourism, manufacturing, ICT
industry, etc.)
Main tools
Subsidies
Investments
Key actors
National governments, farmers
All levels of government (supra-national,
national, regional and local), various
local stakeholders (public, private, NGOs)
Source: “Reinventing Rural Policy ”, Policy Brief, OECD, November 2006.
006
1.3. Third step: the 2nd pillar of the CAP
The third step is the move from cohesion policy to the 2nd pillar of the CAP.
In 1992 with the MacSharry reform, a first rural development policy under
the agricultural policy has been designed in favour of a balanced development of these areas. This operated a transition of rural development from
cohesion policy to the CAP. However, part of cohesion policy measures
12 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
remained available for rural areas. The philosophy of this policy changed
with the introduction of broader concerns linked with European agriculture: rural development mainly focused on agri-environmental measures
and introduced the idea of remuneration for services and stressed that
to cope with long-term problems of rural communities an integrated
policy that involves agricultural and broader objectives was necessary.
This important change in the CAP concept – as a sector-centered policy –
began a wider and slow evolution during 20 years. Until now, this has led
to the implementation of a second pillar called “rural development” and
the creation of a single fund in 20059, the “European Agricultural Fund for
Rural Development (EAFRD)”, separated from the European Agricultural
Guarantee Fund (EAGF). As a single fund the EAFRD has specific rules for
programming, financing, informing and monitoring aimed at simplifying
the implementation of rural development policy. Nowadays, Pillar II of the
CAP covers rural development, and Member States design their rural development programme under a common framework and co-finance it.
Rural development is focused around four thematic axes, mainly broad objectives that aim at improving: competitiveness, environment, quality of life and
economic diversification in rural areas and local development through axis 4
(LEADER). Between 2007 and 2013, Member States have minimum thresholds to respect for each axe in their rural development plan (respectively 10%-25%-10% and 5%) but it is their main responsibility to design their
rural development strategies, in order to: “ensure consistency with other EU
policies, in particular those for economic cohesion and the environment”10.
Therefore, the option of streamlining rural development funds with other
funds has been opened, however, non-mandatory for Member States.
9. C
ouncil Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy.
10. European Commission, European Network for Rural Development, EU Strategic Guidelines for Rural
Development.
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
– 13
Table 2 – Programming systems of EAFRD and Structural Funds before the CSF
Rural development system
Structural Fund system
Community
Strategic Guidelines
Community
Strategic Guidelines
National
Strategic Plan
National
Strategic Framework
Rural
Development
Programme
NationalRegional
OperationalOperational
ProgrammesProgrammes
A xis 1
A xis 2
A xis 3
A xis 4
PriorityPriority
A xesA xes
Measures
Source: E xtract from Mantino Francesco, “The Reform of EU Rural Development Policy
and the Challenges ahead”, Policy Paper No. 40, Notre Europe, 2010, p. 47.
1.4. A fourth step: beyond 2014,
EU policies in line with the new rural paradigm?
Until today there has been a lack of consistency in any attempt to coordinate cohesion and rural development policy. This has sparked two
main criticisms on the lack of coordination between these funds. These
criticisms relate on the one hand to “the gaps in coordination between
cohesion policy and agricultural rural development (i.e. emanating from
the 2nd pillar), which have repercussions for national and regional funding
by means of partnership co-financing”11. On the other hand the criticisms
11. Jouen M., op. cit., 2009.
14 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
relate to “the lack of coherence between sectoral policies that have a major
impact on rural areas – in particular, policies concerning major transport
infrastructure, communication and energy, health, education, training and
research”. A rationalisation of the entire set of instruments was necessary
and pleaded for a while12.
The changes needed to respond to these criticisms of EU rural development policy are analysed in a broader context by the OECD in its “new rural
paradigm”. Indeed it implies to change many policies in which a better
coordination of the different measures to rural areas is only part of broader
3. GOVERNANCE
STRATEGIES TOan
SUPPORT
RURAL POLICY
and deeper changes. The latters consist
in implementing
area-based
approach instead of a sectoral approch to rural policy; it also recommends
level
of government
and
well as vertically
to
conceive
differently
theamong
policy,local
“to actors,
includeas
a cross-cutting
and across
multidifferent tiers of government. An integrated rural policy implies that actors
level
governance approach. Traditional hierarchical administrative strucinvolved are called to perform new tasks, which requires changes in mind set
tures
are likely to be inadequate to administer these policies effectively
and new skills. Evaluation and monitoring are also key in order to make sure
and
key
t h a tadjustments
p l a c e - b a s eare
d pthus
o l i c needed
i e s a re along
e f f e cthree
t ive a
n dgovernance
i m p rove d dimensions:
ove r t i m e.
Table 3.6 illustrates
of the key
challenges
and solutions
horizontally
at bothsome
the central
andco-ordination
the local levels
and vertically
across
for effective governance that supports rural policy.
levels of government”.
Table 3.6.
of of
key
challenges
and solutions
TableSummary
3 - Summary
keyco-ordination
coordination challenges
and solutions
Governance challenge
Solution
Persistent sectoral approach
Address central as well as local co-ordination
Lack of implementation mechanisms
Look at good practice, e.g., LEADER
Partners must take partnership seriously
Legislation and incentives
Weakening of local government
Restore powers to local levels
Local government too small
Incentives to co-operate
Ex ante control and approval
Control by results
Difficulties in evaluating policy impacts
Develop and combine “soft” and “hard” indicators
Ineffective local planning
Establish performance reserves and reward mechanisms
Source: Based on Bryden (2005).
Source: The New Rural paradigm,
OECD, 2006.
While there is growing interest among policy makers in place-based rural
development policies, there is a paucity of research documenting their results
and the determinants of successes and failures. This is due on the one hand
12. Bureau J.C., Mahé
������������
L.P., “CAP reform beyond 2013: An idea for a longer view”, Study No. 64, Notre
to Europe,
the objective
difficulties
infuture
evaluating
(especially
in quantitative
terms)
2008; Lyon G.,
“Report on the
of the Common
Agriculture Policy
after 2013”, European
Parliament, A7-0204/2010, 21.06.2010; Mantino F., op. cit.
cross-sectoral policies. As discussed in the previous section, a key challenge
for policy makers is to identify indicators that are capable of capturing in a fair
manner the impacts of policies in
context
and effect are not
The a
Common
Strategicwhere
Framework cause
and its Impact on Rural Development – 15
always identifiable and where results may appear only in the medium to long
term.
Hence, the CSF seems to be the new expected instrument, with the potential
of creating a tool for an integrated rural development policy. Furthermore,
this opens up an important point related to how an enhanced coordination
between these financial instruments can lead to a better targeted use of
European funds.
16 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
2. The architecture of the Common Strategic
Framework and its impact on rural development
2.1. General architecture of the CSF
The layout of the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) relies on adjusting
and implementing at a national, regional and local level the key priorities of the Europe 2020 Strategy, which aims to transform the Union into a
space of “smart, sustainable and inclusive growth”13. As far as the CSF is
concerned this general objective is translated through a set of 11 thematic
objectives, divided in turn into other specific objectives related to each of
the CSF funds. However, the main innovation of the new Common Strategic
Framework consists more in the new mechanisms for coordination, concentration of funds and evaluation and monitoring of performances to be
applied to all structural funds as well as EAFRD and EMFF.
13. Information about the Europe 2020 Strategy: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
– 17
The key mechanism through which the Common Strategic Framework will
implement this coordination is the Partnership Contract (PC). This contract
will commit the European Commission and each of the Member States and
it will ensure that each State implements the thematic objectives of the CSF
in accordance with its own development level and macro-economic status14.
Accordingly, the national auhorities, together with interested actors from
regional and local levels, will set a series of national investment objectives
and priorities which follow the general thematic objectives. These national
priorities will be transposed through precise allocations of funds and
concrete implementation milestones via operational programmes divided
in prioritary action axes. One of the fundamental innovations of the CSF
is that an operational programme will be financed through several CSF
funds – as the two first generations of LEADER programmes – in order to
achieve integrated territorial and thematic investments. Moreover, regions
and Members States are encouraged to implement part of the operational
programmes using community-led local development and local strategic
development on which local communities and authorities will cooperate
with the NGO sector in order to set integrated development strategies with
the contribution of several CSF funds.
The fulfillment of the milestones set by the Parnership Contracts will
be monitored closely by the Commission, which will have the power
to sanction or reward the Member States according to results. Each
Partnership Contract will have a strict evaluation of the departure conditions (ex-ante evaluation) as well as a performance framework with quantifiable objectives to be attained, chosen by each Member State (ex-post
conditionality). The Partnership Contracts are also submittted to a series of
macro-economic conditionalities such as maintaining the state budget in
equilibrium, controling the deficit or implementing structural reforms.
14. Europe 2020 national targets: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/targets_en.pdf
18 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
The Commission will carefully monitor both the fulfillment of the ex-ante
conditions (2016) and the implementation of the performance framework
(2017 and 2019), as well as the macro-economic conditionalities and
will be drafting recommendations if any objective is not met. If a Member
State persists in not fulfilling its self-assumed milestones, the European
Commission will be able to suspend financing or to apply financial corrections. On the other hand, if the self-assumed milestones have been
succesfully met, the Member Sates can accede a supplementary performance reserve which will contain 5% of each CSF fund. Each Operational
Programme will be reviewed. Within the same success-oriented logic, concerning the macro-economic stability milestones, a Member State may
receive a 10% co-financing increase from the European Union. These
different issues are currently discussed by the Council of Ministers.
2.2. Rural development and the CSF policy setting
The recent CAP proposals take a step forward by laying down various
synergy mechanisms between rural development and European regional
and fisheries policies. “On the basis of the proposal of 6 October 2011
that sets out common rules for all funds operating under the CSF, Pillar II
of the CAP should work in a coordinated and complementary manner with
Pillar I, as well as with other EU funds”15. The CSF will replace the current EU
Strategic Guidelines for rural development and will be transposed through
Partnership Contracts, signed with each Member State, which will include
common objectives and management rules. All in all, the Commission
argues that establishing these common rules will “make projects easier to
handle for both beneficiaries and national authorities and will also facilitate the implementation of integrated projects”16.
15. European Commission, COM(2011) 627 final/2, op. cit.
16. European Commission, COM(2011) 627 final/2, op. cit.
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
– 19
Without any doubt, rural development retains its autonomy as an integrated policy under the CAP heading. In this respect, the CSF clearly stipulates that the already obtained harmonisation between the two CAP
pillars, as well as their strong links and structures, “will be maintained and
sustained”. Thus, the CSF will provide the new European policy settings for
all the funds, including rural development, which will draw all the coordination elements needed for an enhanced use of these funds.
The objectives present in the new Rural Development Commission proposal
are closely linked with the overall thematic objectives set out in the CSF.
However, it is up to the Member States to identify their needs and establish
their priorities in the area, taking into account the European objectives,
when they draw their national strategy plans for rural development. Six
EU-wide priorities will steer the future EU rural development policy17:
(1) Transfer of knowledge and innovation;
(2) Competitiveness and farm viability;
(3) Food chain organisation and risk management;
(4) P
reserving and enhancing ecosystems dependant on agriculture
and forestry;
(5) Resource efficiency, low carbon and climate-resilient economy;
(6) Social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development
in rural areas.
The first objective is a general one and tends to focus on innovation and the
transferability of skills, while the second and third objectives are actually
focused on the food supply chain and on the agricultural sector. The fourth and
fifth represent the environmental component of the new CAP proposal, which
according to one Commission official translate the need for sustainable rural
development and for maintaining the rural sites as attractive places to work
and to live in. Lastly, the sixth objective focuses on rural areas economy and
17. European Commission, COM(2011) 627 final/2, op. cit.
20 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
particularly, the stimulation of employment and the need of developing basic
services for the inhabitants of rural areas such as healthcare institutions for
the ageing population, kindergartens for parents and better schools for pupils.
Table 4 - How will rural development policy work with the CSF?
EUROPE 2020 STRATEGY
Thematic Objectives of the CSF
(1) strengthening research, technological
development and innovation;
(6) protecting the environment and promoting
resource efficiency;
(2) enhancing access to and use and quality of
information and communication technologies;
(7) promoting sustainable transport and removing
bottlenecks in key network infrastructures;
(3) enhancing the competitiveness of small and
medium-sized enterprises, the agricultural sector
(for the EAFRD) and fisheries and aquaculture
sector (for the EMFF);
(8) promoting employment and supporting labour
mobility;
(4) supporting the shift towards a low-carbon
economy in all sectors;
(10) investing in education, skills and lifelong
learning;
(5) promoting climate change adaptation, risk
prevention and management;
(11) enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient
public administration.
(9) promoting social inclusion and combating
poverty;
Partnership Contract
National Priorities
Ex-ante Evaluation
Performance Framework
Macroeconomic
conditionalities
Operational Programmes
ERDF
ESF
CF
EAFRD
EMFF
Community-led local
development
Monitoring Committees at
National level
Ex-ante conditionalities
To be fulfilled by 2016
Suspension of
Funds
Financial
Corrections
Performance Framework
Review in 2017 and 2019
Access to
Performance
Reserve (5%)
Macroeconomic
conditionalities
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
– 21
22 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
3. The added value and uncertainties of a Common
Strategic Framework for rural development18
Considering the limits here above mentionned, will the Common Strategic
Framework (CSF) improve the efficiency of rural development policy?
3.1. A
dapting our policies to the Europe 2020 Strategy and
to new urban-rural relations
As underlined by Dirk Ahner “territorial cohesion was made explicit by the
Lisbon Treaty and the question was how Europeans can pragmatically and
practically achieve it”. The CSF provides a tool to make territorial cohesion
and the Europe 2020 Strategy particularly effective for most funded EU
policies. Indeed, the CSF will oblige to translate the Europe 2020 objec18. This chapter benefits from the contributions of the 22 November 2011 conference, “The Common
Strategic Framework: adding value to rural development? Bridging the gap between the CAP and
the cohesion policy” with the participation of Dacian Cioloș, Commissioner for agriculture and rural
development; Dirk Ahner, Director General of DG Regio; Britta Reimers, MEP; and Stefanos Loukopolous,
ELARD representative. See Programme in annex 1.
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
– 23
tives into national and regional plans. All the specific objectives of rural
development and cohesion policies will have to be consistent with the
broader EU 2020 objectives (e.g. innovation, competitiveness of SME’s,
renewable resources, energy, infrastructure, etc.).
The CSF also provides a framework to adapt EU structural policies to a new
reality, described by Commissioner Dacian Cioloș as “a growing complexity of relationships between rural and urban areas”. Thus, nowadays there
is a need to transform our policies into territorial strategies corresponding to these new realities. The terms rural and urban areas have become
obsolete, and it is more and more difficult to make a clear distinction
between the areas that separate them. Approaching in an accurate manner
territorial development is of utmost importance, as 60% of the EU population lives in rural or intermediate regions and 90% of the territory is rural or
intermediate, according to the General Director of DG Regio.
24 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
Table 5 - Common Strategic Framework – Main steps to come
Common Strategic Framework
- future timeline -
October 2011
Regulation on the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) including the
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social
Fund (ESF), the Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Agricultural
Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European M aritime
and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).
January 2012
European Commission will publish as a Delegated Act the new
Common Strategic Framework for all the funds. This will replace
the “EU Strategic Guidelines 2007-2013”.
Spring 2012
Public Consultation on the CSF Commission Proposal.
By the end of 2012
The European Parliament and Council of the European Union
will negotiate and adopt the R egulation laying down the common
provisions for all the funds.
Beginning of 2013
A dopting the CSF – three months after the Regulation has been
adopted.
Spring 2013
Signing Partnership Contracts with Member States,
in parallel with the adoption of Implementing Acts.
Spring 2013
A dopting the Operational Programmes. Programmes will be based
on priority axes , each one representing a thematic objective , which
will be financed by one of the funds. The CSF grants the possibility
to mobilise several funds to finance one programme .
2017 and 2019
Preliminary evaluations of the results of the programmes and
of the use of funds.
Source: the table is based on various primary and secondary sources19, including interviews
with European Commission officials. The dates are not completely accurate and are based on
predictions and on the preliminary European agenda on adopting the CSF.
19. Isabelle Smets, “Du cadre stratégique aux programmes opérationnels”, Europolitics, 6 October 2011.
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
– 25
3.2. A key factor in the success of the CSF:
coordination at the national level
Indicating investment priorities, the CSF will force an improvement in coordination between sectoral and territorial policies including: transport, agricultural, research, climate change, employment and education. This raises
the attention on the decisive role of national and regional governments
and their efficiency during the whole process, and especially with regards
to rural development policy. All in all, the Commission considers that the
success of the CSF depends on how well Member States will manage to
coordinate the use of multiple European funds at the national level and
involve partners from all economic sectors (e.g. representatives from the
farming as well as the craft or the services sectors). Given the current gap
between Member States regarding funds absorption, one can fear that
with the CSF there will be even more demand for coordination and this
will lead to a growing diversity between national management types. Dirk
Ahner explained that the “accent will be put on functional areas – either
areas which have common struggles or areas with common opportunities
(e.g. mountainous areas). However, in his view practice tends to show that
“functional areas are extremely unfriendly towards administrations”.
Member States will have more flexibility to devise their own strategies. They
will be able to respond to their own national and local specificities and
better focus on results. The CSF fixes objectives and indicators (ex-ante and
ex-post conditionalities) which insist on performance. The CSF provides a
common overarching structure encouraging an enhanced integration and
coordination between the funds, something that national administrations
will not be able to ignore and have to implement. Indeed, in order to reach
their territorial strategy and define their priorities, Member States will have
to combine their sectoral strategies. This will translate in a higher degree
of national inter-departmental coordination, in order to improve the use of
their budgets and funds. Simply said by Dirk Ahner, “national ministries
26 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
will have to work together, and ministries that did not discuss together
before will have to do it now (e.g. Ministries of agriculture and economy,
transports, climate change).” Nevertheless, some actors question the
success of coordination of the funds under the CSF mainly due to potential
interpretation problems, as well as with “the level of readiness of national
administrations – in terms of adapting rapidly and enacting the changes
present in the CSF”. In this respect, Stefanos Loukopolous, representative of the European Leader Association for Rural Development (ELARD),
stressed the need that the CSF should be implemented in a way that will
not cause confusion for local actors.
In order to ensure an efficient coordination, the Commission will assess
how Member States coordinate their ministries and services, as to tackle
major challenges and investment priorities: competitiveness, energy efficiency and renewable resources. This part of the monitoring will be decisive
as DG Regio’s General Director has already seen in the past “regions [that]
had problems with the implementation of regional and rural development
funds, because of the lack of coordination at national and regional levels”.
Considering that at all levels, including the EU level, stakeholders will need
to move beyond the demarcation trend between the funds. Until now it
existed due to the fear of double financing from more than one programme
(either the EAFRD or structural funds). In order to accommodate to these
changes, MEP Britta Reimers agreed that the CSF could build a bridge
between all these funds. However, discussions are now in their preliminary
stage and an appeal has been made for more debates on how exactly this
should be done. As a Member of the European Parliament, Ms. Reimers
considers that the CSF may answer to the need of enhanced cooperation
between farming, SME’s and other economic sectors, which will ultimately
lead to cost and resource savings.
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
– 27
3.3. Reducing or increasing the administrative burden
of European programmes?
Commissioner Cioloș stressed that thanks to the CSF the funds might have
less reasons to be frozen for red tape. But the Commission’s concerns
about the administrative burdens faced by beneficiaries when accessing
funds will probably not disappear under the CSF rule. Many stakeholders
now fear that current administrative costs and control systems will actually
increase under the CSF.
Nevertheless, the CSF will harmonise the eligibility rules of all these funds
and simultaneously manage to keep the specific rules of each fund, which
will be detailed in the funds specific regulations. Administrative costs are
a key issue in order to ensure the efficiency of spending CSF funds. As statistics show the total amount of public expenditures engaged for 2007201320 reaches on average around 30% of the total public expenditures
programmed for this period. The figure gets worst as far as LEADER programmes are concerned. In France, in 2010, only 9% of payments appropriations have been covered for the LEADER programme. Beyond the
average rate, strong differences exist between Member States. This invites
for a further clarification of the position and role of Member States and local
stakeholders in the future rural development policies before reforming
the current funding architecture. Overall, the Commission suspects that a
strategic targeting of the use of funds will temporarily generate the need to
establish new institutional systems which will add additional administrative burden for the beneficiaries.
20. European Commission, European Network for Rural Development, op. cit.
28 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
3.4. Will rural areas benefit or be weakened under the CSF?
The CSF will provide a common chapeau to five funds but each of them,
including EAFRD, will maintain its own specific objectives. According to
Dirk Ahner, this will allow the policy to remain ajusted “to the differences of development processes between urban and rural areas, with rural
areas developing more slowly than cities”. Moreover these policies need
to address in a suitable way the big contrasts between European rural
areas, with some areas being very innovative and with others (particularly
in Eastern Europe) being undermined by poverty. Given these contrasts,
the CSF aims to highlight much better the convergence objectives of the
Union and to address discrepancies between its regions.
However there are fears concerning a potential unbalanced allocation of these
funds, under the CSF, between regions and countries. It is unclear under what
circumstances and criteria, priorities will be given to some projects in spite of
others. Furthermore, while the CSF regulation presents how structural funds
will be allocated to each sub-programme, there is yet no clear “financial earmarking” for rural development funds, in sharp contrast to structural funds.
This uncertainty leads rural development stakeholders to wonder how their
priorities and their financing will fit in the CSF. With regards to this issue,
Britta Reimers underlines an existing common problem in accessing funds at
the rural level – e.g. credits for SME’s are hard to obtain in rural areas – in
comparison with measures devoted to urban areas. The MEP notes that “it is
important that urban doesn’t dwarf the importance of rural – e.g. one meter
of road (infrastructure) is much more expensive in rural areas than in urban
areas – and thus, we have to develop equal standards in both areas”.
On this particular issue, speakers agree that more attention should be paid
to funding small projects in rural areas which are obviously disadvantaged
in comparison with large urban plans. Thus, the outcome of both financial
and technical discussions on the CSF is crucial.
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
– 29
3.5. The CSF and its benefits for local stakeholders
The CSF initiative indicates the Commission’s recognition of the positive
impact of bottom-up methods and approaches upon the regeneration of
low-growth economies and the renovation of rural areas as a whole. Indeed
Article 110.5 of the CSF regulation about co-financing rates of ERDF, ESF
and cohesion fund plans that “the maximum co-financing rate (…) shall
be increased by ten percentage points, where the whole of a priority
axis is delivered through (…) community-led local development.” This
incentive given to local development does not seem foreseen for EARDF
but generally, this shows as for the Commission that growth and development start from local areas.
On this point, Mr. Loukopolous considers that the CSF will improve the role
of local stakeholders in implementing bottom-up approaches through the
LEADER programme, in a way in which the CSF will be the common platform
for the future of local development: “Under the new regulation, and specifically the CSF, the Local Action Groups will gain further responsibilities
and weight but also more room for manoeuvre and an upgraded role as a
one-stop-catering-shop for communities through multiple policy fields and
funds.”
Indeed, both representatives of the Commission stress that stakeholders consultation will be obligatory for Member States, in order to come up
with the best priorities and solutions present in Partnership Contracts.
Currently the efficiency of the programmes is limited because of too much
scattering but more discussions between governments and project leaders
should help to improve the process. For instance, there will be a harmonisation between these funds. Regional policies will be subject to harmonised calculations. A similar concern has been raised by the Committee of
30 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
the Regions , pointing out the need to consult local actors prior to estab21
lishing these priorities. Concerning monitoring, different programmes will
have different evaluations. Concretely, this means that each programme
will have its own evaluation indicators according to the specificity of the
programme and to the results which it needs to achieve.
Any of the specific points and problems that stakeholders have at this
particular point can be emphasized in the upcoming public consultation.
ELARD considers that a definitely fruitful coordination at national level will
exist only if the European Commission provides the Members States with
guidelines allowing them to re-adjust in good time; and civil society organisations at local, national and European level contribute to inform local
stakeholders on the process and potential benefits of the CSF.
21. S
peech by Mercedes Bresso, President of the Committee of the Regions, Seminar of the French Assembly
of Regions and of the Auvergne Regional Council, 22 November 2011, Clermont-Ferrand.
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
– 31
32 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
Concluding remarks
Taking into account the conference results, it can be concluded at this
stage that the future Common Strategic Framework will have the potential
to, on the one hand, improve the way in which European funds are spent
and targeted. On the other hand, the CSF may increase the efficiency of
these funds which will now be pooled together, more coordinated, in
order to serve common priorities and objectives, investment priorities
and major challenges, in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy. Considering
these improvements, the CSF might promote the visibility of rural development contribution to the EU growth strategy. As the CSF aims to improve
the overall transparency in using EU funds at national, regional and local
levels, it will imply management of all the funds, guided by simplified procedures, common principles and eligibility rules.
However, several uncertainties on the CSF proposal remain, mainly concerning: the definition of project priorities that could lead to a potential
competition between urban and rural areas projets; a rising administrative
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
– 33
burden for the beneficiaries due to the new institutional system required
at the begining. Debates confirm the key role national administrations will
play in enacting the CSF priorities, adapting them to the local, regional
and national needs and, on top of that, coordinating their ministries and
administrations to implement the CSF. The uncertainties concerning the
level of readiness of national institutions and their capacity to coordinate
the funds and manage the new framework swiftly raises concerns among
various stakeholders. As many concrete details are yet to be finalised
before a clear picture will emerge by the end of 2012, long discussions are
expected.
Opening up the potential for a better use of European finances in line with
the Europe 2020 Strategy for a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth,
the CSF might also contribute to what the European Union advocates for
through its rural and cohesion policy, namely a balanced territorial development comprising reduction of economic and social disparities between
Europe’s regions.
34 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
Annex 1
The Common Strategic Framework:
Adding value to Rural Development?
Bridging the gap between the CAP and the Cohesion Policy
Final Agenda
Tuesday 22 November 2011
18h30 – 20h00
European Parliament, Room PHS07C050
18h30Welcoming address by Mr. Alin Cristian Mituţa,
Director of Europuls
18h35 Mrs. Nadège Chambon, Senior Researcher, Notre Europe
18h45Mr. Dacian Cioloș, European Commissioner responsible
for Agriculture and Rural Development
18h55Mr. Dirk Ahner, Director General, DG REGIO, European Commission
19h15Ms. Britta Reimers, Member of the European Parliament,
Rapporteur for CAP modulation
19h25Mr. Stefanos Loukopoulos, European LEADER Association
for Rural Development (ELARD)
19h35 Debate and questions from the public
20h00 Conclusions
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
– 35
Annex 2
Current Functionning of Rural Development
The EU Rural Development policy is implemented through Rural Development
Programmes (RDPs) set out by Member States or Regions (in cases where
powers are delegated to regional level). To ensure a coherent strategy of
rural development across the EU, RDPs must be set out accordingly to the
National Strategy Plan, defined by each Member State, which must be
based on the Community Strategic Guidelines.
Legislative basis
- Community strategic guidelines for rural development (programming
period 2007 to 2013): 2006/144/EC: Council Decision of 20 February 2006
- Support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for
Rural Development (EAFRD): Council Regulation (EC) No 1944/2006 of
19 December 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005
Legislative basis
Around EUR 226 billion can be spent by the RDPs during the period 20072013, of which EUR 90.8 billion (61% of public expenditure) is funded by
the European Union through the EAFRD (European Agricultural Fund for
Rural Development), and the remainder by national governments and the
private sector.
Source: European Commission, European Network for Rural Development.
36 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
Annex 3
Rural Development after 2014
Rural development in a new framework (1)
Europe 2020 strategy
Common Strategic Framework (CSF)
– covering the EAFRD, ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund and EMFF, and reflecting EU2020 through common
thematic objectives to be addressed by key actions for each of the funds
Partnership Contract
– national document outlining the intended use of the funds in the pursuit of EU2020 objectives
Rural development
policy: EAFRD
Other CSF funds
(ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund the EMFF)
Priorities
Innovation, Environment and Climate Change as cross-cutting themes
Fostering
knowledge
transfer and
Innovation in
agriculture,
forestry and
rural areas
Enhancing
competitiveness
of all types of
agriculture
and farm viability
Promoting
food chain
organisation
and risk
management
in agriculture
Restoring,
preserving and
enhancing
ecosystems
dependent on
agriculture and
forestry
Promoting resource
efficiency and
supporting the shift
towards a low carbon
and climate resilient
economy in
agriculture, food
and forestry sectors
Promoting social
inclusion,
poverty reduction
and economic
development
in rural areas
Rural Development Programme(s)
18
Source: European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development,
“The CAP towards 2020. Legal proposals”.
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
– 37
Annex 4
The CSF: towards integrated local development strategies
In its proposals on future cohesion policy presented on 6 October 2011,
the Commission suggested that integrated local development strategies should be implemented and local action groups set up, in a bid to
find better ways of combining the various European funds [European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Social Fund (ESF), European
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and European Maritime
and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)] at local level.22
The new Cohesion and Rural Development Regulations tabled on 6 October
do include clear proposals for Community-led local development. The EC
proposes: focus on specific sub-regional territories and community-led,
by local action groups composed by local authorities and representatives of the public and private local socio-economic interests and development and implementation of integrated local development strategies.
Local Development will also be integrated as it will be supported by the
Structural Funds, EAFRD and EMFF, with one of them acting as lead fund.
The review of the pre-2006 and the evidence already gathered during this
period showed that the mainstreaming of the local development initiatives
into the operational programmes has not provided the expected results.
Following the so-called Kiruna paper published in late 2009, a local
22. Inforegio Newsroom, Seminar on local development and EU territorial policies.
38 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
development study fleshed out this concept further in March 2010. This
resulted in Local Development being proposed in the 5th Cohesion Report,
alongside a new urban, rural-urban and functional area approaches as new
drivers of the policy at sub-regional level.
DG REGIO has, however, continued working on this concept and is currently
undertaking a study on Local Development to achieve a common and
clear definition of local development and operational recommendations
on how and when local development could be used to deliver Cohesion
Policy and how to monitor and evaluate the effects of local development
interventions on economic, social and territorial cohesion at regional and
national level. Moreover, the case for Local Development now also extends
to the European Social Fund. In fact, DG EMPL is carrying a similar policy
scoping. Equally the existing provisions in the EAFRD Regulation on Local
Development are reinforced.
Source: Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR).
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
– 39
40 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
Bibliography
Bresso M., President of the Committee of the Regions, Speech at the seminar
of the French Assembly of Regions and of the Auvergne Regional Council,
22 November 2011, Clermont-Ferrand.
Bureau J.C., Mahé j.C., “CAP reform beyond 2013: An idea for a longer view”,
Study No. 64, Notre Europe, 2008.
Chambon N., Tomalino C., “Rural development in EU policy: a retrospective”,
Policy Brief No. 14, Notre Europe, 2009.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing
of the common agricultural policy.
European Commission, “EU Agricultural Economic Briefs – Rural areas and the
Europe 2020 Strategy: Education”, 07/11/2011.
European Commission, “EU Agricultural Economic Briefs – Rural Areas
and the Europe 2020 Strategy: Employment”, 07/11/2011.
European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament
and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional
Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries
Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general
provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund
and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, COM(2011)
615 final, Brussels, 06/10/2011.
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
– 41
European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and
of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund
for Rural Development (EAFRD), COM(2011) 627 final/2, 19/10/2011.
European Commission, “A budget for Europe 2020 – Part II: Policy fiches”,
COM(2011)500 final.
Jouen M., “The keys to a European strategy for rural development”, Note, Notre
Europe, 2009.
Jouen M., “Local development in Europe: assessment and prospects after the
economic crisis”, Policy Brief No. 21, Notre Europe, 2011.
Lyon G., “Report on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013”,
European Parliament, A7-0204/2010, 21.06.2010.
Mantino F., “The Reform of EU Rural Development Policy and the challenges
ahead”, Policy Paper No. 40, Notre Europe, 2010.
OECD, “Reinventing Rural Policy”, Policy Brief, November 2006.
OECD, The New Rural paradigm, 2006.
Smets Isabelle, “Du cadre stratégique aux programmes opérationnels”,
Europolitics, 6 October 2011.
Thomson K., Berkhout P., Constantinou A., “Balancing between structural and rural
policy”, in Oskam A., Meester G., Silvis H. (eds.), EU Policy for Agriculture, food
and rural areas, Wageningen Academics, 2011, pp. 385-402.
42 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Policy
50
paper
Selection of Notre Europe’s Publications on Budget,
CAP and Cohesion
Subsidiarity versus Solidarity? The example of the European Food Aid Program
for the Most Deprived – Nadège Chambon (Policy Brief No. 30, October 2011).
Is the CAP a ground for European disunion? An assessment of the solidarity
mechanisms created by the CAP and their relevance after 2013 – Nadège Chambon
(Policy Paper No. 45, June 2011).
The “added value” in EU budgetary debates: one concept, four meanings –
Eulalia Rubio (Policy Brief No. 29, June 2011).
Thinking the EU budget and public spending in Europe: the need to use an aggregate
approach – Amélie Barbier-Gauchard (Policy Brief No. 28, June 2011).
Solidarity and responsibility in the European Union – Jérôme Vignon
(Policy Brief No. 26, June 2011).
Local Development in Europe: assessment and prospects after the economic crisis
– Marjorie Jouen (Policy Brief No. 21, January 2011).
The reform of EU rural development policy and the challenges ahead –
Francesco Mantino (Policy Paper No. 40, October 2010).
CAP budget negotiations: Make or break for the European Union –
Nadège Chambon (Policy Brief No. 18, September 2010).
Rural Development in EU policy: a retrospective – Chiara Tomalino,
Nadège Chambon (Policy Brief No. 14, June 2009).
The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
– 43
The Keys to a European strategy for rural developement – Marjorie Jouen (Note,
June 2009).
Options for an EU Financing Reform – Philippe Cattoir (Policy Paper No. 38,
December 2009).
CAP Reform beyond 2013: An Idea for a Longer View – Jean-Christophe Bureau
and Louis-Pascal Mahé (Study No. 64, May 2008).
Territorial Cohesion: from Theory to Practice – Marjorie Jouen (Policy Paper No. 35,
June 2008).
EU Budget Review: Addressing the Thorny Issues – Eulalia Rubio (Policy Paper
No. 32, March 2008).
A changing Global Context in Agricultural Policy – Isabelle Garzon (Policy Paper
No. 28, June 2007).
What Future Framework for Agriculture after 2013? – Jean-Christophe Bureau,
Nadège Chambon, Pierre Lepetit, Pierre Rainelli. With the Contributions of
François Bonnieux, Sylvie Bonny, Nadège Chambon, Pierre Dupraz,
Isabelle Garzon, Aziliz Gouez, Michiel Keyser, Sophie Méritet, Karine Latouche
and Josef Schmidhuber (Study No. 62, December 2007).
European Budget: the Poisonous Budget Rebate Debate – Jacques Le Cacheux
(Study No. 41, June 2005).
All our publications are available for free on our website: www.notre-europe.eu
44 – The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural Development
Legal Mentions
With the support of the European Commission:
support to active entities at European level in the field of active European citizenship.
Neither the European Commission nor Notre Europe are to be held responsible for the manner in
which the information in this text may be used. This may be reproduced if the source is cited.
Notre Europe also receives the financial support of the French Government,
the Compagnia di San Paolo, the Macif and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Dépôt legal
© Notre Europe, December 2011
Nadège Chambon
Alin Cristian Mituţa
Neculai-Cristian Şurubaru
Nadège Chambon is
Senior Research Fellow,
in charge of “CAP
2013” research project
at Notre Europe.
Alin Cristian Mituţa is
Director of Europuls,
a Brussels-based
Romanian think
tank specialised in
European affairs.
Neculai-Cristian
Şurubaru is a Member
of the Board and Junior
Policy Officer at the
Brussels-based think
tank Europuls.
Competition, Cooperation, Solidarity
The Common Strategic Framework
and its Impact on Rural Development
In October 2011, in the context of the next financial programming discussions, the European
Commission proposed a Common Strategic Framework for five EU funds that will cover 42% of the
2014-2020 budget (ERDF, ESF, Cohesion fund, EAFRD, EMFF).
This Policy Paper analyses this proposal which simultaneously aims to facilitate the programme
management for the project leaders, to encourage States and regions to better coordinate their
policies and to better implement the Europe 2020 Strategy. From a macroeconomic viewpoint, it
aims to give a new approach of development within the EU, on the basis of local advantages and
of the territorial reality rather than on the basis of categories that have become obsolete: rural vs.
urban, industries and services vs. primary sector.
Development of rural areas should benefit greatly from this reform, as it will avoid too much
scattering of the measures agreed within the 2nd pillar of the CAP (EAFRD) and the cohesion policy.
However, before being implemented, the new architecture raises several questions which will have
to be answered to guarantee its efficiency.
This Policy Paper benefited from the outcomes of a conference organised by Notre Europe and
Europuls in the European Parliament on the 22 November 2011.
www.notre-europe.eu
e-mail: [email protected]